Search for: "Ward v. Weekes"
Results 321 - 340
of 693
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 May 2014, 6:00 am
In Blanchard v. [read post]
12 May 2014, 3:14 am
Warde-McCann and Porciello, along with the Third Department’s 2007 ruling in Rimawi v Atkins, also involving a Delaware LLC, which in turn relied on — you guessed it — Warde-McCann and Porciello in dismissing a dissolution petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [read post]
5 May 2014, 1:43 pm
In this week’s case (Desharnais v. [read post]
5 May 2014, 5:17 am
Last week the Court issued its decision in Environmental Protection Agency v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 7:11 pm
Tort and insurance cases include Reynolds v. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 1:37 pm
Last week was a busy week in the federal circuits. [read post]
6 Apr 2014, 11:32 am
Ward, 2014 WL 1317155 (9thCir. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm
Thompson v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 12:32 pm
The case is Doe v. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 9:31 am
In Lawson v. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 8:13 am
These issues have developed significantly in recent weeks with the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawson v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 8:22 am
In Lawson v. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 6:53 am
Koshenina v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 11:20 pm
Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Basic, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 12:57 pm
Cf., e.g., Ward v. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 3:35 am
In Ward v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 2:18 pm
There's enough of interest in the North Carolina Court of Appeals' decision this week in GE Betz, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 9:48 am
The competitor's antics may be unanticipated, even unattractive, yet lawful [Says this Kat: these words resonate with the observation of Jacob J, as he then was, in Hodgkinson & Corby Ltd v Wards Mobility Services Ltd (No.1) [1995] F.S.R. 169 that the law essentially lets a business do what it wants in a competitive environment, unless there is a specific rule to prevent it].The second factor is legal context. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 7:27 am
The argument this week in Medtronic v. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 10:23 am
This rule of policy must yield when it conflicts with the dominant domestic duty of the court to guard the welfare of its wards. [read post]